BHARAT CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated February 8, 1990 passed by the learned member of the Industrial court, Mumbai, in the Complaint (ULP)No. 47 of 1986, granting certain reliefs to respondent No. 1 union against the Petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, and is engaged in the business of manufacture of collapsible tubes. It has its factory at Anik mahul, Chembur, Mumbai 400 074. Petitioner no. 2 is the Joint Managing Director of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is a recognised Trade Union under the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act, for short ).

(2.) ON January 13, 1986, the Respondent no. 1 union filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that from December 20, 1985 they had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items l (a) of Schedule II and items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. It was the case of Respondent No. 1 that the petitioners were employing a number of temporary workmen and continuing them, as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of becoming permanent workmen. It was further alleged that under the settlement dated May 4, 1984, the workmen were entitled to daily wages at the rate of Rs. 27. 73 per day. However, the petitioners had paid wages at the rate of 12. 00 per day to the 16 workmen named in Annexure b to the complaint. Respondent No. 1 alleged that the Petitioners had in contravention of the terms of Clause 1 of the settlement dated december 19, 1984 terminated the services of many workmen and had not given preference to the 29 workmen in employment as required by the said Clause. The fourth grievance of respondent No. 1 was that the Petitioners were giving artificial breaks in service to the 42 workmen named in Annexure C to the complaint in order to deprive them of the benefits of permanency, to which they were entitled to under the existing settlements and awards. These activities, according to respondent No. 1, were done by the Petitioners with a view to disrupt the union (Respondent no. 1 ). It is alleged that the workmen were entitled to be paid 20 per cent bonus for the accounting year 1984-1985, as agreed in the letter dated December 10, 1984. However, the petitioners failed to implement the agreement evidenced by the said letter.

(3.) THE Petitioners resisted the complaint and denied that the services of temporary employees were arbitrarily terminated or that artificial breaks were given in their service. They contended that they engaged temporary employees to meet exigencies of work due to seasonal demands and high absenteeism amongst the permanent workmen. The petitioners further contended that the 13 female and 3 male workmen whose names were mentioned in Annexure B to the complaint were not in their employment and that there was no relationship of employer and employee between them. They pointed out that the said persons were employed by a contractor, who had been engaged by the Petitioners from time to time to do certain work and that the petitioners were in no way concerned with the wages paid or payable to those employee of the contractor. The Petitioners maintained that they were paying their workmen wages strictly in accordance with the settlements in force. The petitioners denied the contents of Annexure C to the complaint and also denied that the 42 persons named therein had been employed by them. On the question of non-payment of bonus, the Petitioners denied that the workmen were entitled to 20 per cent bonus for the accounting year 1984-1985. They pointed out that what was agreed to, vide letter dated december 10, 1984 was that for the accounting year 1984-1985 the workmen would be paid bonus at the rate of 8. 33 per cent and an additional ex gratia amount at the rate of 11. 67 per cent, both of which were to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Bonus act, 1965 as it stood on December 8, 1984. The Petitioners submitted that as a consequence of the dispute, the workmen declined to accept the bonus amount of 8. 33 per cent. The petitioners denied that they committed any unfair labour practice as alleged and contended that the complaint filed against them was not maintainable.